JUDGMENT 1. - The facts which have given rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated. The petitioner, who holds a diplopia in Mechanical Engineering, was appointed as a Store Supervisor `Survey and Investigation' by the order of the Chief Engineer, Rajasthan Ground Water Board, Jodhpur dated February 1, 1968 in a temporary capacity for a period of six months or till a duly selected person was available. The petitioner continued to hold the said post for over three years but by the order of the Chief Engineer dated July 23, 1971, he, along with some other persons, was declared surplus & was directed to report to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Under Ground Water Board, Jodhpur for adjudgment of his suitability for equivalent post. Thereafter, by the order of the Chief Engineer, dated September 7, 1971 the petitioner was declared surplus with immediate effect, on account of abolition of some of the posts of Blasting Supervisors. The petitioner was, however, allowed to continue to work in the Rajasthan Ground Water Board Department till his absorption by the General Administrative Department on an equivalent post. The last mentioned order was subsequently modified by the Chief Engineer by his order dated November 9, 1971 whereby the services of the petitioner, as a temporary supervisor, were terminated with effect from December 8, 1971, as he was not found suitable for the post of Blasting Supervisor by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as `the Commission') in the interview held for the aforesaid post on 3rd, 4th and 5th February, 1971. The petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that the respondent Nos. 4 to 11 were selected by the Commission at the interview held on the aforesaid dates and they were appointed on the posts of Blasting Supervisors as a result of their selection by the Commission. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner also appealed before the Commission for the post of Blasting Supervisor a, the said interview, bit he was not selected for that post by the Commission. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the order of termination of his service passed by the Chief Engineer on November 9, 1971. 2. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner also appealed before the Commission for the post of Blasting Supervisor a, the said interview, bit he was not selected for that post by the Commission. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the order of termination of his service passed by the Chief Engineer on November 9, 1971. 2. The case of the petitioner as set up in the writ petition was two-fold, firstly, that the selections held by the Commission on 3rd, 4th and 5th February, 1971 were illegal and invalid as only one Member of the Commission was present at the said interview and the result of such interview was also not approved by all the Members of the Commission before the same was sent to the State Govt. Secondly, his case is that the respondent Nos. 12, 13 and 14 were junior to the petitioner and although the service of the petitioner was terminated by the order of the Chief Engineer, dated November 9, 1971 yet the respondent Nos. 12, 13 and 14 were retained in service of the Rajasthan Under Ground Water Board, even thereafter. 3. When this writ petition came up for final hearing on October 2, 1974 it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the question of invalidity of the aforesaid interview held by the Commission in February 1971 was also subject matter of consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in some other cases. The hearing of this writ petition was, therefore, deferred and it was ordered that this ease may be listed for hearing after the decision of the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No 721 of 1972; State of Rajasthan v. Amar Singh and others '. It may be pointed out that since then the afore said appeal has been decided by the judgment of this Court dated October 14, 1976 along with another appeal;: The State of Rajasthan v. K.K. Bhatia and others, D.B. Civil Special appeal No. 38 of 1972 (1). It may also be mentioned here that before the appeal in Amar Singh's case could be hear d by this Court, the Governor of Rajasthan promulgated "The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Regulation & Validation of Procedure Ordinance, 1975" which was later on replaced by Act. No. 5 of 1976 bearing the same name (hereinafter called "the Validation Act"). It may also be mentioned here that before the appeal in Amar Singh's case could be hear d by this Court, the Governor of Rajasthan promulgated "The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Regulation & Validation of Procedure Ordinance, 1975" which was later on replaced by Act. No. 5 of 1976 bearing the same name (hereinafter called "the Validation Act"). By the provisions of the Validation Act, the powers, duties and functions of the Commission under the Constitution or under the Service Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution or under any other law could be exercised by the Chairman, one or more of the Members or all the Members of the Commission jointly or severally. The Validation Act further declared that all things done and actions taken, selections made, recommendations made, advice given by one or more Members of the Commission shall be deemed to have been done, taken, held, made or given by the entire Commission. Thus Validation of all things done or actions taken by the Commission or any one or more Members there of was brought on to operation with retrospective effect from January 21, 1961 by the provisions of the Validation Act. 4. After taking into consideration the provisions of the Validation Act the Division Bench of this Court allowed the Special Appeal filed by the State in Amarsingh's case & held that the selections made by the Commission at the aforesaid in review were valid, even if only one or more Members of the Commission had taken part in such interview & the recommendations made by the Commission were also valid even if they were not approved by all the Members of the Commission. The result was that the writ petition of Amar Singh, who had challenged the appointments of Drilling Supervisors in the Rajasthan Under Ground Water Board was dismissed. In view of the provisions of the Validation Act, it cannot be held now that the interview held by the Commission on 3rd, 4th and 5th February, 1971 for the posts of Blasting Supervisors, at which the petitioner appeared and was unsuccessful were either illegal or invalid in any manner, as all such selections made by the Commission have been validated. Thus, the first ground taken by the petitioner does not survive after the promulgation of the Validation Act and it cannot be said now that the termination of the service of the petitioner by the Chief Engineer, on the ground that the petitioner was not found suitable for the post of Blasting Supervisor by the Commission, can be held to be illegal or invalid on account of any deficiency or defect in the proceedings of the Commission at such inter view or selection. 5. So far as the second ground taken by the petitioner is concerned, it may be sufficient to point out that admittedly the respondent Nos. 13 and 14 were employed as Chargeman and were working on a separate category of posts, while the respondent No. 12 though junior to the petitioner has subsequently been selected by the Commission for the post of Workshop Supervisor. As the petitioner was not selected by the Commission, rather he was found unsuitable for the post of Blasting Supervisor, yet the respondent No. 12 has been found suitable and was duly selected for the equivalent post of Workshop Supervisor, the petitioner cannot now be given any relief So far as the respondent No. 12 is concerned. It is also not in dispute that tie respondent is Nos. 13 and 14 have also been similarly selected by the Commission, and as such it cannot be held that the respondent Nos. 12, 13 and 14 are similarly situated as the petitioner and the plea of discrimination is not now available to the petitioner so far as these three respondents are concerned. Therefore, the second ground taken in the writ petition also does not survive. 6. During the course of arguments, two applications for amendment of the writ petition were submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner under O. VI, R. 17 read with section 151, of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the second ground taken in the writ petition also does not survive. 6. During the course of arguments, two applications for amendment of the writ petition were submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner under O. VI, R. 17 read with section 151, of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the first application presented on July 15, 1977 it has be in urged that the petitioner may be allowed to add a ground which has arisen to the petitioner subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, namely' that after the promulgation of the Rajasthan Ground Water Subordinate service Rules, 1973 the petitioner was entitled to he screened tinder clause of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of those Rules, as the petitioner was eligible for substantive appointment by way of first recruitment on the post of Blasting Supervisor under the aforesaid rules. By another application which has been moved on July 20, 1977 it has been prayed that the selection and appointment of the respondents No. 4 to 11 having already been declared invalid in this Court in Sub Civil Writ Petition No. 1624 of 1971 by the order dated February 11, 1975 and so the selection and appointment of the said respondent Nos. 4 to 11 could not be validated on account of the subsequent amendment brought about by the Validation Act. I must strongly deprecate the practice of filing applications for amendment of the writ petition during the course of final arguments. The present writ petition was filed in this Court on December 9, 1971 and it has remained pending for more than 51/2 years, but the amendments which are now sought to be made were not conceived by the learned counsel during all this time, and are sought to be made only at the fag end of the case. The arguments in this writ petition began on July 13, 1977 & after some arguments had taken place an adjournment was sought on that day for July 18, 1977. I cannot appreciate the conduct of the learned counsel in seeking an adjournment for the purpose of studying the case further but utilising such an opportunity for making an application for amendment of the writ petition. The Rajasthan Ground Water Subordinate Service Rules came into force on December 27, 1973 but the application for amendment has been presented only 15-7-1977. I cannot appreciate the conduct of the learned counsel in seeking an adjournment for the purpose of studying the case further but utilising such an opportunity for making an application for amendment of the writ petition. The Rajasthan Ground Water Subordinate Service Rules came into force on December 27, 1973 but the application for amendment has been presented only 15-7-1977. Such an application by all standards is grossly belated, as it was filed almost 31/2 years after the coming into force of the said Rules. Similarly the application which has been fired on July 20, 1977 has also been presented after enormous delay as the writ petition of Govind Mal, to which a reference ha been made therein, was decided by this Court on February 11, 1975 and the D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 60 of 1975 arising from that writ petition was also decided some time in the car 1975 and if the petitioner was desirous of takin, any such ground by amendment in the present writ petition, then the applicable for amendment should have been moved soon hereafter. In these circumstances, both these amendment applications deserve to be rejected and the petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the writ petition at the fag end of the arguments, after the same has remained pending for almost six years. 7. Moreover, the case of Govind Mal Jain is clearly distinguishable from the case of the petitioner. The service of Govindmal Jain as a Blasing Supervisor, Rajasthan Ground Water Board was terminated specifically on the ground that some other persons were selected by the Commission whose appointment was alleged to be invalid. In that case this Court, following the decision in the case of K. K. Bhatia v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, 1972 RLW 22 , held that he subsection was invalid as the entire Commission did not consider the list of selected candidates before the same was forwarded to the State Government by the office of the Commission. There could be to quarrel with the decision arrived at in Govind Mal's case on the basis of law as it then stood. It was oily subsequently thereafter that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission Regulation and Validation of Procedure Ordinance, 1975 came to be promulgated on August 25, 1975, which was later on replaced by the Act bearing the sane name. It was oily subsequently thereafter that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission Regulation and Validation of Procedure Ordinance, 1975 came to be promulgated on August 25, 1975, which was later on replaced by the Act bearing the sane name. One of the provisions of the Validation Act have retrospectively validated the selections made and recommendations made by one or more. Members of the Commission deeming them to have been made by the Full Commission, notwithstanding any judgment of any court. However, it is not necessary for me to pursue the matter further, as in the present case, the service of the petitioner was not terminated be- cause he was required to make room for the respondents Nos. 4 to 11. The selection of respondents Nos. 4 to 11 has not been made the basis of the termination of the service of the petitioner A perusal of the orders Annexures 3 and 5 clearly show that the service of the petitioner was terminated on account of the abolition of posh of Blasting Supervisors and as the petitioner was not fund suit able for the post of Blasting Supervisor by the Commission. As the selection held by the Commission on 3rd, 4th and 5th February, 1971 has been retrospectively validated, on account of the promulgation of the Validation Act, it cannot now be held that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by the Commissioner was in any manner illegal or invalid. If the petitioner was not selected by the Commission and was found unsuitable, then it does not with him to insist that he should be continued in his temporary employment on the post of Store Supervisor or Blasting Supervisor. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also mentioned before this Court that not only the petitioner was rejected for the post of Blasting Supervise or by the Commission, in the interview held in February 1971, but subsequent thereto he also appeared for an interview before the Commission for the post of Drilling Supervisor and he was similarly found unsuitable for that post as well. In the Schedule attached to the Ground Water Subordinate Service Rules, 1973 there is no post as Store Supervisor. Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules provides for the composition of the service and the nature of the posts have been specified in Column (2) of the Schedule annexed to those Rules. In the Schedule attached to the Ground Water Subordinate Service Rules, 1973 there is no post as Store Supervisor. Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules provides for the composition of the service and the nature of the posts have been specified in Column (2) of the Schedule annexed to those Rules. Rule 5 provides for the initial constitution of the Service and all persons substantively appointed to posts specified in the Schedule at the time of the commencement of the said Rules are to be included in the initial constitution of the Service, as also the persons appointed to such posts after the commencement of the said Rules, in accordance with them. The petitioner was holding a temporary appointment which also came to an end by the order Anuexure 5, dated November 9, 1971 even prior to the commencement of the aforesaid Rules. After the said Riles had come into force, an appointment to the post other of Drilling Supervisor or Blasting Supervisor or Workshop Supervisor can be made either by direct recruitment or by promotion. The petitioner is not entitled to appointment by promotion as he is not holding and lower post in the service in a substantive capacity. For appointment by direct recruitment, the only method available is to appear for selection before the Commission & it could be only after such election by the Commission that the petitioner can be appointed on any one of the aforesaid posts, included in the Service. 9. The argument of the learned counsel is that clause (a) of sub rule (1) of Rule to 6 provides the method for the recruitment of appointment to the posts in the Service in a substantive capacity. The contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner is eligible for substantive appointment by the procedure of screening, as provided in clause (c) of Rule 6(1). The learned Deputy Government Advocate, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was not holding any post on the date of the coming into force of the Rules, as his temporary employ merit had already been terminated by the order dated November 9, 1971. The learned Deputy Government Advocate, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was not holding any post on the date of the coming into force of the Rules, as his temporary employ merit had already been terminated by the order dated November 9, 1971. It is difficult to hold that the petitioner has any legal right of being screened under the provisions of clause (c) of Rule 6(J), as his temporary appointment already stood terminated on December 8, 1971 much prior to the promulgation of the aforesaid Rules of 1973, and he has continued to hold the post of Store Supervisor thereafter merely on the basis of the stay order passed by this Court in this writ petition. To my mind interim orders passed by the Court during the pendency of the writ petition in this court cannot have the effect of creating any permanent rights or obligation in the parties. Thus the contention of the learned counsel that the order of termination of the petitioner's service should be set aside on the ground that the State Government has not proceed to screen the petitioner according to the provisions of Rule 6(1) (c) cannot be accepted. So far as the order of termination of the temporary employment of the petitioner on the ground that he was found unsuitable by the Commission is concerned, no exception can be taken to it now & it dots not appear to be invalid in any manner Prior to the coming into force of the 1973; Rules, the only mode of recruitment to the post of Store Supervisor or Blasting Supervisor in a substantive capacity was by selection through the agency of the Commission and if a person was then found unsuitable by the Commission, the Appointing Authority was perfectly justified in terminating the service of such a person because such a person could not be continued indefinitely in employment in a temporary capacity, when he lost the final opportunity of appointment in a substantive capacity, having been found unsuitable for the said post by the Commission. The order passed on November 9, 1971 cannot be invalidated by a subsequent provision introduced by way of clause (c) of Rule 6(1) of the Rules, which came into force only in December 1973. The order passed on November 9, 1971 cannot be invalidated by a subsequent provision introduced by way of clause (c) of Rule 6(1) of the Rules, which came into force only in December 1973. Moreover, the question as the whether the petitioner is otherwise eligible or not for screening under the provisions of clause (c) of Rule 6(1) has neither been raised nor can be decided in this writ petition. However, if the State Government so likes and if it is permissible to do so under the Rules, it may proceed to screen the petitioner for appointment to a post in the Service. 10. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this writ petition and is dismissed. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.Writ dismissed. *******